It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
The calculation which supports the creationist argument begins with the probability of a 300-molecule-long protein forming by total random chance. This would be approximately 1 chance in 10^390. This number is astoundingly huge. By comparison, the number of all the atoms in the observable universe is 108^0. So, if a simple protein has that unlikely chance of forming, what hope does a complete bacterium have?
By comparison, the number of all the atoms in the observable universe is 108^0
Whats the point of this thread to point out how improbable abiogensis on its own without any guidence from outside forces?
Why don't you go to school and help them recreate abiogensis in a lab ?
lets just admit it the aliens kicked started it
or some divine intervention to kick start it
Originally posted by seedofchucky
lets just admit it the aliens kicked started it
Originally posted by Griffo
Just a clarification: the theory of how life originated on earth is called abiogenesis. It is different to the theory of evolution
The calculation which supports the creationist argument begins with the probability of a 300-molecule-long protein forming by total random chance. This would be approximately 1 chance in 10^390. This number is astoundingly huge. By comparison, the number of all the atoms in the observable universe is 108^0. So, if a simple protein has that unlikely chance of forming, what hope does a complete bacterium have?
Abiogenesis, similar to evolution, was a long process of little tiny steps which was also governed by the forces of natural selection and chemistry. The very first stages of abiogenesis were no more than simple self-replicating molecules, which might hardly have been called alive at all.
It has been theorised that the shortest self replicating peptide is only 32 amino acids long. The probability of it forming randomly, in sequential trials, is approximately 1 in 10^40. Which is a huge difference to the 10^390 claim we saw earlier.
If the theory of abiogenesis relied entirely on random chance, then yes, it would be impossible for life to form this way. However that is not what the theory of abiogenesis is.
But it has to be about coincidence, no matter how you put it.
In fact, if we assume the volume of the oceans were 10^24 liters, and the amino acid concentration was 10^-6M,(which is very dilute) then almost 10^31 self-replicating peptides would form in under a year, let alone millions of years. So, even given the difficult chances of 1 in 10^40, the first stages of abiogenesis could have started very quickly indeed.
“armed with their best computer programs, competed to solve one of the most complex problems in biology: how a single protein, made from a long string of amino acids, folds itself into the intricate shape that determines the role it plays in life. . . . The result, succinctly put, was this: the computers lost and the proteins won. . . . Scientists have estimated that for an average-sized protein, made from 100 amino acids, solving the folding problem by trying every possibility would take 10^27 (a billion billion billion) years"
Deny Ignorance. Using the Lottery to show that life on earth spontaneously occurs is laughable, because your trying to play on other peoples ignorance with your own. When somebody wins the lottery they are not the only ones playing. Let's say a lottery has a 12 million to 1 chance for the winning numbers to be picked with each ticket sold. If that week, in that lottery, they sell 10 million tickets, and have 6 million tickets with a unique set of numbers, the odds are now 2 to 1. As you can see the odds that week give all the ticket buyers a combined 50% chance of winning. So can we get passed the idea, on ATS, the odds of winning the lottery are somehow worse than a coin toss?
Originally posted by novastrike81
reply to post by Griffo
I find the study interesting, but when Creationists throw out the probability of life to be 10^390; I like to throw out that "we're here, so it must be probable."
Highly improbable situations happen all the time, like people winning the lottery. Why should the formation of life on Earth or elsewhere in the Universe be treated any differently?edit on 27-7-2011 by novastrike81 because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by edmc^2
Can you please tell me which one of the three main ingredients of life came first:
Is it the:
1) DNA?
2) RNA?
or the
3) Proteins?
Or
4) all at the same time?
Originally posted by addygrace
Deny Ignorance. Using the Lottery to show that life on earth spontaneously occurs is laughable, because your trying to play on other peoples ignorance with your own. When somebody wins the lottery they are not the only ones playing. Let's say a lottery has a 12 million to 1 chance for the winning numbers to be picked with each ticket sold. If that week, in that lottery, they sell 10 million tickets, and have 6 million tickets with a unique set of numbers, the odds are now 2 to 1. As you can see the odds that week give all the ticket buyers a combined 50% chance of winning. So can we get passed the idea, on ATS, the odds of winning the lottery are somehow worse than a coin toss?
Originally posted by xxsomexpersonxx
Virus's are likely the offspring of a different abiogenesis too.
No it doesn't change, one ticket winning. If you were the only one buying one ticket each week, on a 12 million to 1 lottery, then you would have a point about the lottery being improbable. The only improbability in the lottery is one person winning the lottery, playing by themsleves. It's not improbable for the totality of all ticket buyers to win the lottery If you brute force a certain intended outcome, then not only is it probable but you don't even need to be lucky.
Originally posted by john_bmth
reply to post by addygrace
The number of players does not change the chance of any given entrant winning. Regardless, life played the lottery for billions of years. Evidently it one, because we're around to witness it.
Originally posted by addygrace
There are no known exceptions to life coming from life.
I'm not arguing from incredulity. I'm arguing from a standpoint of science. Biogenesis is repeatable. Their are no exceptions to this observation of science. Believing in abiogenesis is the exact opposite of science.
Originally posted by rhinoceros
Originally posted by addygrace
There are no known exceptions to life coming from life.
Because we have studied this for such a long time now it's safe to conclude that it's impossible and God did it? Let's get back to this when we've studied this for some hundreds of millions of years in replicated early Earth environment.